A Tale of Two UIs: Complex and Full-Featured vs. Simple and Easy

In the wake of Microsoft's recent discussion about the newly ribbonized Windows Explorer UI in Windows 8, I've received a lot of email from readers who aren't too thrilled with this direction. (And a few, to be fair, who are.) I'd like to make two points about this.

First, the Windows Explorer UI in Windows 8 is a secondary, legacy UI, based on the deemphasized Windows desktop, and will largely be used only by Luddites (those who can't stand progress and won't even look at the Metro-like Start Screen) and those who need to use occasional legacy applications. That Microsoft is evening refurbishing this part of Windows is pretty interesting, when you think about it. But as Microsoft noted just today, Windows 8 will have twin UIs, one a reimagining of Windows (Start Screen), one a "no compromise" UI with backwards compatibility (Windows desktop).

This isn't ideal, in my opinion, but it does give Microsoft a way to handle two very disparate user groups: So-called powers users, who demand every single widget and control possible, and the more common average users, who just want a streamlined, simple environment.

The changes Microsoft is making to Explorer are largely for the power users, the types of people who will continue to live in the old desktop regardless of whatever wonderfulness appears in the Start Screen. And for those users who are unfamiliar with Explorer, admit it: This UI, ugly as it is, will help them find what they need. Eventually.

This all suggests that complaints about the ribbon UI (as in this post) are somewhat shortsighted. Yes, including my own.

Second, people who do complain about this new UI are still on to something. And that's because, regardless of what you think about the mass of buttons seen in the Explorer ribbon, it's not touch friendly in the slightest. And yet here we are, rocketing to a future of touch-first interfaces, as Microsoft calls them, and instead of creating something that would work for everyone--which is, by the way, what I think is so genius about the Start Screen--Microsoft is still creating UIs that only work for people that aren't using touch.

Look at this thing: How the heck could anyone actually tap the Cut, Copy Path, or any of the other smaller commands shown here? Answer: They can't. Those onscreen elements are too small. (And as you can see, this shot was taken with display scaling set to Larger.)

The other day, I compared the Windows 8 Explorer to the Finder in Mac OS X Lion. But just today, we see the release of another app, this time for Google, that follows the type of simplicity trends one would expect of this post-PC/PC-plus era: Offline Gmail for Google Chrome. And no surprise here, but it's based on the web version of Gmail for the iPad, with a super-simple UI and touch-friendly onscreen controls.

This is exactly the type of UI Microsoft should be building for Windows 8. And heck, maybe they are. But if so, they certainly haven't shown it yet. I haven't lost faith that they'll get this right. But as with the developer stuff (will they or won't they continue to support Silverlight?), I have to admit I'm wondering.

Update: Looks like Amazon is getting into the simplification game too. Check out their web site redesign:

Discuss this Article 22

The simplification of UIs in major OSs to optimize them for touch is a totally ridiculous process. I am not going to be touching my 30'' inch screen and I do not need huge buttons on it!!! I can see very well, thank you. I want an easy access to programs because I do not play with the computer, I do actual work. In fact, I do like the wealth of information that a large monitor supplies and ***I have no interest what so ever for a simplified "touchable" GUI*** in these machines. None, whatsoever.
Somebody at MS has gone tablet crazy. The only tablet that would ever sell (for pure fashion reasons) is the iPad. None is buying the other tablets. But somehow, MS has decided to subordinate the OS development to this fad. Amazing.
The OS in the desktop should remain an environment in which rich information (and possibly dense) can be presented. In smaller screens, touch interfaces are fine. Designing the OS to cover all bases, one satisfies none. As usual!!!

I think touch was most likely one of the main drivers of adding the ribbon UI to Explorer. Granted, you'll be much less likely to even launch the full Explorer if you're on a tablet or what have you, but if you need to, you can.
With the ribbon, you can just poke those big Copy, Paste, Delete, Rename, Properties and New Folder buttons, whereas without them you'd be at a loss for a way to right click in order to expose those options.
Yes, some of the buttons are pretty small for touch-based input, but those are (by design) the less used options, and I can't help but think they kept touch input in mind when picking which would be bigger and smaller. There's probably not much chance you're going to want to "Copy Path" on a touch device, but you can "Move To..." with a single poke.

Personally, I've always felt that if the OS UI was an important part of the work you do, then the UI has failed. I work in applications, not OSes, and thus they should get as far away from my work as possible.
The Metro UI and overall simplification of the OS UI for Microsoft is a great move and one I welcome. Let the app drive the screen, that's why I chose to run it.

Anastassios, it's touch-first, not touch-only. You can obviously use the mouse, keyboard with the Start Screen. And that Gmail interface for Chrome is for mouse/keyboard, not touch, though it works great on iPad with touch-only too. My point here is that it should work well with as many interaction types as possible. The new Explorer does not do that. And the move to simplify UI is not "crazy". It's the right thing to do.

"it's touch-first, not touch-only"
This is the big concern I have for Windows 8. Those using a traditional desktop or Laptop have no need for touch. Those using a tablet have no need for a keyboard or mouse.
MS has two nice products currently in Windows 7 and Windows Phone 7 that meet the needs of each type of device. For some reason they want to merge them together into a single OS. I don't get why they are doing that. They are making good improvements for each OS, but the merging of them in Windows 8 seems like a bad idea to me.

Paul, while I don't 100% agree with Anastassios, I think you're getting a little too deep into the new explorer. You've stated many times that touch is not ideal for every user. I would agree and believe this is Microsoft's attempt to build a single OS serving two masters. While touch / tiles UI works perfectly for limited use at home, I can't imagine holding my arms outstretched for 8 hours working at a desk. My entire desk would have to be touchscreen for that to be efficient for me. I read somewhere (maybe here) that Microsoft's products have always been tailorable (not sure if that's a word) to users. This new explorer seems customizable enough for the power user, and once shortcuts are learned it can be hidden and forgotten.
As much as I resisted the Office ribbon (and still do), the changes were appropriate for the majority of users. I cannot count how many times I've heard people say it's just so easy to find things now. It's allowed non-power users to access options that were not easily identified previously.
In providing an operating system that is versatile enought to operate on a table, pc, htpc you can have it all. This allows the pc/laptop/netbook/tablet to do it all. Carry it with you and use the touch interface. Dock it to a monitor and wireless keyboard/mouse combo to have a functional workstation. Plug it into your TV via HDMI, hook up a kinect and you've got a very functional 10' interface. With one device you have several UI's to manipulate each tailored based on the intended purpose. I'm really looking forward to seeing this in action and hope I'm not too far off from MS intentions with Windows 8.
I'm not sure if any of my drivel makes sense.I love your website wanted to establish a non-lurker status.
PS - thats a pretty serious registration process you have there. I had to double check to make sure I didn't click a buy-it-now link. I know you have to make money somehow, but who's paying you for all of that data?

I disagree with the "you can't touch" the small items, as I have never once had an issue touch the smaller items (many of which I would say look even smaller than the ones you point out) in the Office ribbon ui. When you open word, look at the ribbon and see the icons for changing case, font size etc on the ui. They are easy and simple to tap with a finger, as are the cut and baste ones which are the same size as the ones you call out in this ui. I've never had a mis tap, my fingers aren't tiny. and those elements are not to small to tap with a finger

I cannot agree with Paul's comment that "touch first" is a good thing. It is not. One would not be touching at all the screen of a typical desktop or of a laptop. Touch is OK with tablets and phones, but not with larger screens to which a keyboard and mouse are attached. Working on a typical desktop, touch is not ergonomic. So designing an OS to be "touch first" is simply crazy and should not be encouraged. MS should have designed two different GUIs. The whole notion about "immersive" and "classical" is silly and gimmicky.
Then, we have the total stupidity of "simplifying" the interface. This really means making everything larger so that they can be "touched". What this accomplishes is to remove essential information, commands and status information so that somebody's fat fingers can be accommodated. And all that while we have absolutely no need for this on the desktop and laptops. Somebody at MS went tablet-crazy. Tablets will remain very peripheral devices and a separate GUI can be generated for them.
On the basis of what I know so far (and I have read the "building Win 8" blog), I have absolutely no interest in this mongrel. I will be staying with Win7 until MS regains its senses.

Dear God, people. :)
Touch-first does NOT mean touch only. It means it works with touch screens as well as traditional interfaces (mouse/keyboard).
This is the whole Steve Jobs "cars and trucks" argument all over again. You can say moving to a simpler UI is "not good." But is good, for virtually all users. It's also inevitable, so you might want to get over your preset opinions and open up to the future. It's happening.

I surveyed friends and family and learned that at least 80% didn't know that there was a file manager named Windows Explorer. They thought I was talking about IE. Those are the users who would find new pretty colors and touch navigation notable. For the rest of us: where are the new >features< which represent progress? What happened to utility, power? Dual panes, tabs, file manipulation, etc. have been around for years. Play with the free xplorer2 lite to see where MS should have been years ago. Give consumers a reason to buy W8.

I think the new UI is interesting and could potentially be a great experience. However, my opinion is derived from a few short video clips and explanations. I think that judgment one way or another about the potentiallity of the UI should be suspended until one has actually experienced the UI first hand.
Speaking of which: Paul, have you experienced the new UI first hand?

What is with all the Windows desktop UI hate? First of all, what you describe as "occasional legacy applications" to be used only by Luddites are in fact *every* *single* Windows application currently in existence. It will be years before all the applications most people use will be rewritten for Metro.
I'm a big fan of the Metro, and agree that it is the future, but don't assume that everyone will be able to ditch the Windows desktop as soon as Windows 8 is launched.

Paul, a question for you that seems simple, and maybe you know the answer why. Why does the ribbon need to be on the top? On most computers and laptops nowadays, they are wide screen, with more width and height. Why not have the ribbon on the right or left and free up the vertical space? The could probably have a toggle for smaller (non-touch use) or larger the ribbon buttons that are touchable and scrollable with the buttons on say the right hand side and that you flip touch through.

Here's what I was envisaging for Windows 8.
When you're using a Windows 8 tablet, you spend most of the time in Metro and very rarely drop into the standard desktop. Having used Windows Phone 7 I don't doubt that Microsoft can do a good job of this, the key will be ramping up the Metro side of the app marketplace pretty rapidly.
When you're using a Windows 8 laptop, you spend most of your time in the Windows 7-like environment that we're all used to.
The clever part is that when you plug an iPad into a keyboard, it's still just an iPad, but when you plug a Windows 8 tablet into a keyboard, you get a fully featured laptop with all its USB and professional/legacy app goodness. One device to rule them all. This to me seemed like a killer feature that could potentially unseat the iPad as the market leader.
Reading Sinofsky's post made me think that's where they are going but now Paul's commentary has me nervous that they are going to do some horrible munging together of these two separate experiences. Paul, do you have any insights on whether or not this is the case?

Paul, no mention of Microsoft's fancy, new, rejiggered site?
What about the consolidation of Server+Cloud technologies?
This stuff is moving fast. I'd say that anyone that was looking at Microsoft last year will be shocked at how much they've changed their message this year. Next year I'll bet that Azure will be marketed heavily as the public cloud platform of choice. Right now, it seems to be marketed from the back burner until Office 365 gains in popularity, and becomes a household name.

My reaction to the new UI and "the immersive experience" is *again* that a key component of our computing environment is dumbed down. There is little doubt that MS (as well as Apple)target entertainment to sell PCs, associated devices, operating systems and software. This is more than bizarre, considering most PCs are bought by enterprises for productivity reasons. I can understand Apple targeting entertainment, but Microsoft? How stupid can this be?
There are many trends in computing that are counter-intuitive from the use point of view. Screens in laptops are losing vertical pixels while web pages get longer and longer. Manufacturers want to convince stupid users that they buy these laptops to watch movies, but this is the least of what they do. Now, we have MS designing an "entertainment"-directed interface (around HTML 5), while virtually no useful program is written in it. The user does not even have the capability of banishing it to oblivion. Tablets are for entertainment and content consumption, but PCs? What is Microsoft thinking?
Another stupid development is the ribbons. The justification is of revealing difficult to find commands, but come on!!! Was there only one way of making the program user friendly? All this effort for eye candy has left Word, Excel and Powerpoint devoid of some real progress. Using Word for technical and scientific documents has not progressed much from version 1.0. In fact, using footnotes, endnotes, cross-references and the like is now more difficult than it was in version 2.0!!! Powerpoint is seriously devoid of robust text manipulation. It is stuck in version 1.0. Can we stop the stupid eye candy and make these programs more useful?
Paul should start querying real utility, not eye candy. If Outlook shows me less in the screen for the benefit of touching buttons, is this a good thing? I say no. I think that it is stupid. Who the hell thought that it was a good idea to reproduce the tablet on the desktop?

I'm against the "dumbing down" of any interface. If they want to make a simple interface for casual users and for consumer devices, they should label it as such. I wouldn't expect that interface to have the tools that I need, so I wouldn't buy it by mistake. They could even give it a nifty consumer friendly name, like "Windows Touch"
There are a great many users like myself though, that have need of all those little menus and command options. And while the metro stuff might find uses on my desktop, everything else needs to be professional and not consumer oriented. So they need to make a "Windows Pro" version as well.
This makes sense to me. Clumping everything into what I feel is a dumbed down (or I really feel more like, un-educated) mass is just silly. I've tried hard to use the iPad, since it came out. It's just not there yet in a professional sense. I honestly can't imagine a time when a tablet will replace my desktop/laptop for work. Maybe for non-computer work, but not in my biz. So please, Microsoft, stop trying to be everything to everyone and just make a simple division between consumer devices and computing devices. OS X Lion turned my multi-thousand dollar computer into a fischer-price toy. For the low price of thirty dollars, Apple got rid of me as a customer and I sold my Mac to a "consumer". Don't go down that road, Microsoft, and make me turn to linux to get work done.

The desktop is not going to go away simply because Microsoft doesn't think it's cool anymore. It is my opinion that Microsoft is committing a fundamental mistake with Windows 8 by alienating desktop users and PC users in general which make up the majority of their customer base. "Touch first" implies that they are considering the mouse and keyboard to be an afterthought. Touchscreens do not work on a computer that is sitting on a desk; they never have. Look up "Gorilla Arms". We had touchscreens back in the Apple II days and no one used them then. So the notion that somehow, touchscreens are going to become widely used on the desktop is utter nonsense.
HTML is a document markup language. It was not designed for creating user interfaces for standalone applications. Javascript is a scripting language; it's also not designed to be used to create standalone applications. Using HTML5 and Javascript to write desktop applications is a complete misuse of those tools and is the equivalent of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It's laughable to expect something like a Fortune 500 Accounting System to be written in HTML5 and Javascript (which means that, if Microsoft tries to phase out the desktop, corporations will simply switch to something like Linux and then that will be the end of Windows and Microsoft).
Unlike Steve Sinofsky, I actually have real world experience dealing with and helping the "average" computer user. I'm not some ivory tower elite sitting in my cushy office acting like I know what the users what better than they do. And the single most important thing is consistency. Mac OS, for example, has had the same basic interface for 26 years. (And Launchpad is nothing new; Apple had that back in the System 7 days with At Ease). When we first started rolling out Office 2k7, we actually had to send out a memo detailing how to save and print because the file menu was gone. So you can imagine how users will react to a complete paradigm shift.

Like most, I'm curious about how they'll actually fit these two disparate interfaces together.
Personally, I don't see any sign that they are going to treat power users like second-class citizens. The fact that they're updating Explorer, and adding the new Copy/Paste and Progress dialogs should be enough to support that.
Here's my best guess...
The new Start Menu will act as a kind of MS Office Backstage for the desktop if the desktop is how you want to work. Hitting the Start key, for example, may bring you in and out of this UI and the tiles will function as desktop gadgets currently do, essentially giving you an OS X Dashboard type of functionality that also includes launching/searching functionality.
But if you don't want to use the desktop, you can configure Windows in such a way that you will live entirely in Metro. The Building blog is talking about configurability, but I assume this is directed at the OEM audience rather than the end user audience -- i.e. you can build a device that has no desktop visible or in memory if you want to be Metro-only.
I don't think there will be any deep integration between the two UIs. There can't be. It's only been 2 years since they started, and you will have to deal with legacy UIs no matter what if you step outside of Metro. The best they can do is expose the best of Windows via both UIs and give a Metro-only option for the tablets where the legacy UI won't work.

@Brian Hill... Mac OS X Widgets and Windows Gadgets are written in HTML, CSS, and Javascript. Therein lies at least some evidence that these technologies can be used to write UI-driven apps that exist outside of a web browser.

MattBG, a widget/gadget is a far cry from a full-blown application. A widget does not run on it's own, it is hosted by another application. In essence, HTML5/Javascript are being used to extend another application. Widgets are typically used to convey information and generally have limited interactivity.

What I Use

Like many, I was hoping to see a new Lumia flagship before the end of 2014, and while I was pleasantly surprised in some ways by both the Lumia 735 and 830, neither offers the level of performance or best-in-market camera quality I had come to expected from Microsoft/Nokia's high-end devices. So I pulled the trigger on an unlocked Windows Phone flagship that will hopefully take me through at least the first half of this year. Or until Microsoft gets off its low-end fixation and satisfies the needs of its biggest fans....More

It's been a while since the last What I Use, but there haven't been many major changes since late last year: Surface Pro 3 has become my go-to travel companion, I've added a third cellphone line for testing Windows Phone, Android and iPhone side-by-side, and have rotated through some new tablets and other devices. We've also switched from FIOS to Comcast and added to our set-top box collection....More